>>Jim Wrote: "If Christianity is to survive, it is going to have to accept
the
>>Bible as a human document. I don't know how successful Christians will be
>>with that approach, but its the only hope that they have."

>In this, Jim, you appear to be in substantial agreement with the process
>theologians Peacocke, Borg, Spong and Griffin. The latest books from the
>first and last of these four Christians were reviewed by me both in
>PERSPECTIVES and in an expanded article on Metanexus; copies are on my web
>site.

>I've read much of both Spong and Borg (not reviewed them however). Although
>I personally don't agree with much of their theology, I see theirs as a
>valid Christian worldview. The best book by Borg I have is the one he
>co-wrote with a conservative (orthodox) Christian as a back and forth
debate
>over these issues.

>I recommend any and all of these authors to you.

I think that I mentioned in a previous post how odd it is to
now be more "liberal" than the most liberal ASAer. One consequence
is that I now side with Christian liberals against Biblical inerrantists.
In that sense, I respect all honest scholarship. Oh well, I find the
number of my "postable" thoughts for this list dwindling. If faith
"feels good, do it" :-) The real societal problems are the conservative
inerrantists (predominantly YECs).

Peace,
Jim

>From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
>To: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@dplanet.ch>
>CC: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: Re: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?
>Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:48:37 -0000
>
>Peter writes
>
> >The Bible has to use the (flexible) language of the day, in a way
> >compatible with God's intentions for _all_ of subsequent history.
>
>Peter, first I would like to commend you on your valiant effort to
>reconcile Gen 1 with the Bible. In an age when Christians still
>believe the earth is 6K old, your approach is noble.
>
>For the sake of Christianity, you may wish to cease making statements
>like this, however. For the purposes of this list, I will only say
>this (althought there are weightier problems with this angle) - the
>Bible is way too long. The Christian message is all men are sinners
>and need Christ to pay for their sins. Any perceived falsehood in
>the Bible allows non-Christians to ignore its message (in Christian
>terms, not get convicted of sin). This represents a contradiction.
>God is supposed to be convicting non-Christians of sin, but because
>of the falsehoods (I am simply tired of Christians explaining
>inaccuracies as "figurative speech) they are turning their backs.
>
>If Christianity is to survive, it is going to have to accept the Bible
>as a human document. I don't know how successful Christians will be
>with that approach, but its the only hope that they have.
>
>Jim